#title #ubuntu-meeting Meeting Meeting started by pleia2 at 21:00:33 UTC. The full logs are available at http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2011/ubuntu-meeting.2011-09-06-21.00.log.html . == Meeting summary == ''LINK:'' http://ubuntuone.com/7JTEZG0YScFj9mliRJPcCI (pleia2, 21:00:41) ''LINK:'' http://ubuntuone.com/7JTEZG0YScFj9mliRJPcCI (pleia2, 21:00:50) *Membership Survey ''LINK:'' http://ubuntuone.com/7JTEZG0YScFj9mliRJPcCI (jono, 21:02:55) ''ACTION:'' jono to set up the pages and then mail the RMBs for input (pleia2, 21:12:29) ''ACTION:'' mako to add clarification to docs to encourage reviewing apps from testimonials (pleia2, 21:20:14) ''ACTION:'' popey add elevator pitch to Membership page summarizing the purpose and function of membership (jono, 21:20:16) ''ACTION:'' dholbach raise awareness of the list as a place for support (jono, 21:22:48) ''ACTION:'' popey mail RMBs about lack of quorum workflow (jono, 21:36:31) ''ACTION:'' pleia2 to publish "welcome" document for new board members with policy for approvals (pleia2, 21:38:55) ''LINK:'' http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/713 gives some more background on sabdfl's view on it, which I think is reasonable (highvoltage, 21:45:26) Meeting ended at 21:46:40 UTC. == Votes == == Action items == * jono to set up the pages and then mail the RMBs for input * mako to add clarification to docs to encourage reviewing apps from testimonials * popey add elevator pitch to Membership page summarizing the purpose and function of membership * dholbach raise awareness of the list as a place for support * popey mail RMBs about lack of quorum workflow * pleia2 to publish "welcome" document for new board members with policy for approvals == Action items, by person == * dholbach ** dholbach raise awareness of the list as a place for support * jono ** jono to set up the pages and then mail the RMBs for input * mako ** mako to add clarification to docs to encourage reviewing apps from testimonials * pleia2 ** pleia2 to publish "welcome" document for new board members with policy for approvals * popey ** popey add elevator pitch to Membership page summarizing the purpose and function of membership ** popey mail RMBs about lack of quorum workflow == People present (lines said) == * jono (113) * pleia2 (57) * popey (56) * dholbach (21) * mako (12) * Laney (10) * meetingology (9) * highvoltage (8) * micahg (6) * head_victim (6) * stgraber (1) * geser (1) * ubottu (1) * DarkwingDuck (1) == Full Log == 21:00:33 #startmeeting 21:00:33 Meeting started Tue Sep 6 21:00:33 2011 UTC. The chair is pleia2. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot. 21:00:33 21:00:33 Available commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired 21:00:41 [LINK] http://ubuntuone.com/7JTEZG0YScFj9mliRJPcCI 21:00:46 oh 21:00:50 #link http://ubuntuone.com/7JTEZG0YScFj9mliRJPcCI 21:00:56 I don't know how this new bot works :) 21:00:59 :-) 21:01:07 so do we want to review the findings in the doc? 21:01:19 sounds good, I read through it earlier 21:01:24 cool 21:01:26 * dholbach too 21:01:30 I summarized the key themes on the last page 21:01:37 #topic Membership Survey 21:01:40 I think these are interesting areas of focus and discussion 21:01:49 this is the Community Council meeting btw :) 21:02:02 jono: thanks so much for working on this, it was a very good report 21:02:03 yup 21:02:08 thanks pleia2 21:02:16 I think it is interesting to see the feedback 21:02:29 I am pleased that generally the feedback was very positive about the membership process 21:02:31 ciao 21:02:36 hey mako 21:02:54 mako, we are looking at the membership survey report 21:02:55 http://ubuntuone.com/7JTEZG0YScFj9mliRJPcCI 21:03:34 the key resonating piece of confusion seemed to be about expectations about what constitutes membership 21:03:53 I was wondering if we could look at the areas of participation in the survey and provides examples for the most popular areas 21:04:13 page 5? 21:04:40 pleia2, exactly 21:04:46 jono: and did this go to developer membership board folks too, or just from the regional boards? 21:04:50 maybe https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Membership could provide subpages with examples of such contributions 21:04:54 pleia2, I blogged it 21:04:59 ohj sorry 21:05:02 I see what you mean 21:05:07 in addition to that I think it might be interesting to review together with RMBs/DMB the cases that didn't seem to fit in and see where we can be clearer or amend expectations 21:05:37 pleia2, I asked Jorge to provide a list of all names that have been through the membership process, I think it was mainly regional boards 21:05:42 dholbach, agreed 21:05:59 it seems though the expectations issue likely is where is particularly applies to DMB applications 21:06:06 jono: I read it this morning, it was nice to see the possitive feedback! 21:06:07 e.g. upstream contributions 21:06:12 highvoltage, :-) 21:06:36 maybe we could ask the various membership boards to flesh out examples of what is considered good work in each of those areas 21:06:45 e.g. locos, translations, docs, packaging, upstream contributions etc 21:06:49 I also noticed that some people felt technical things weren't valued as highly as community, and I think that is because in some cases people went to the wrong board (regional when they're doing packaging work, for instance) 21:06:59 and there was general confusion about which board to go to 21:07:00 pleia2, right 21:07:34 * micahg wonders why people aren't warned about this before the meeting in question 21:07:51 micahg, warned about what? 21:07:59 applying for the wrong board 21:08:02 I think I recall a similar discussion some months ago - if I remember correctly the outcome was something like "all membership boards should be able to make a good decision or ask other people for advice" 21:08:04 ahhh I see 21:08:22 micahg: it's very common for wiki pages to be incomplete so the board depends upon the meeting conversation to get more details about where their involvement is, short answer: we don't know before the meeting 21:08:43 pleia2: ah, ok 21:09:05 indeed, RMB can do technical applicants as well. packaging-only contributors are a bit special though and it would probably be more fair to them to apply via the DMB. 21:09:13 what we should stress in the documentation in any case is to explain the relevance of your work for Ubuntu 21:09:47 so would you folks be happy to participate in us listing common areas of work (e.g. locos, docs, translations) and for each area list examples of what is considered good work 21:09:57 I think this could help better communicate what is considered good work 21:10:43 sounds good, should probably put these examples on a separate wiki page though, /Membership is getting a bit long :) 21:11:16 (it's also worth noting that we've improved /Membership *a lot* in the past two years to address some of the concerns raised in the survey) 21:11:22 agreed 21:11:28 awesome 21:11:32 that would help in many cases, I guess - I'm wondering how prone this approach would be to leaving out other kinds of activity 21:11:36 * micahg would also suggest making it clear these are examples and not checklists 21:11:44 micahg: agreed 21:11:44 and the issue of upstream contributions have also been cleared up heavily since the survey 21:11:47 ok, I will take an action to set up the pages and then mail the RMBs for input 21:11:55 maybe then the CC can review this content? 21:12:03 sure, I'm happy to help with that 21:12:04 jono: sounds good 21:12:14 how do I register an action again? 21:12:18 I am so useless with bots 21:12:19 lol 21:12:29 #action jono to set up the pages and then mail the RMBs for input 21:12:29 * meetingology jono to set up the pages and then mail the RMBs for input 21:12:30 I think if we take the areas that each regional board looks at and lists those, then we wont be leaving anything out... Or, it will limit it. 21:12:33 sorry I'm late 21:12:35 awesome 21:12:47 hey popey 21:12:48 popey, fired 21:12:49 lol 21:12:53 wooot 21:13:04 so, there's one very clear way we can address issues of expectations before meetings 21:13:36 mako, oh? 21:13:38 which is to actively encourage members leaving testimonials to give concrete feedback on the completeness of an applicdation 21:13:59 presumably, every person who has been through this process has some idea of what is expected 21:14:08 and they are all actually looking at the page in question 21:14:49 we can change the documentation to suggest that member candidates ask people they ask for testimonials for advice in the process 21:15:01 good thinking 21:15:01 that makes sense 21:15:13 or to even require that testimonials only be left on applications that members feel are complete enough to have a chance of passing! (although that might be heavy handed) 21:15:53 there are a few ways that we can rephrase core parts of the process documents to encourage more feedback from the members who are already involved in the process before even the very incomplete applicdations make it to the meetings 21:16:05 I think this makes great sense 21:16:11 popey, pleia2 thoughts? 21:16:28 i've also tended to think of large majority of rejections/come-back-laters as failures in documentation or communication on our part 21:16:31 I have nothing to add 21:16:36 I think it would be tricky to make this happen, people are busy and writing a testimonial at all takes time without also committing to doing a review of the application 21:16:41 we can certainly encourage it though 21:16:51 however I do think the whole membership thing is opaque to many 21:17:01 (I offer suggestions on apps pretty frequently) 21:17:03 so maybe we should add it to the docs as a form of encouragement 21:17:08 popey, really? 21:17:10 I announced on G+ that Tony was now a member and one reply was "what did he use before?" 21:17:25 but thats from people outside the community 21:17:34 popey, that is understandable outside of Ubuntu 21:17:34 not understanding what membership means to people in the community 21:18:13 I still think there's room for a 30 second elevator pitch at the top of the membership page as to what membership actually means 21:18:17 !membership 21:18:18 Ubuntu Membership means recognition of a significant and sustained contribution to Ubuntu and the Ubuntu community. For more info see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Membership 21:18:25 mako could you add that clarification to the docs to encourage reviewing apps from testimonials 21:18:26 tl;dr 21:18:41 popey, makes sense 21:18:54 but thats a minor point :D 21:19:07 i think that the fact that 17% of the people who end up being members either apply with incomplete information or two early is a concrete number we work to reduce 21:19:12 popey, could you write that and add it to the page 21:19:21 i could try 21:19:25 popey, cool 21:19:26 i think we if we improve the relevant documentations, we can cut this is half 21:19:29 action me! 21:19:35 jono: sure, i'm happy to help with that :) 21:19:41 thanks mako 21:20:14 #action mako to add clarification to docs to encourage reviewing apps from testimonials 21:20:14 * meetingology mako to add clarification to docs to encourage reviewing apps from testimonials 21:20:16 #action popey add elevator pitch to Membership page summarizing the purpose and function of membership 21:20:16 * meetingology popey add elevator pitch to Membership page summarizing the purpose and function of membership 21:20:41 it's also worth noting that the membership boards have a mailing list that people can email to ask us about membership if they have any questions 21:21:09 I think people don't know about it, or they're shy to ask, or don't know they can ask 21:21:09 indeed 21:21:15 is that clear to people who apply? 21:21:32 if that's not in the docs, we should add it, or maybe make it more prominent :) 21:21:56 would you be happy to do that dholbach? 21:22:02 the bottom of each regional page has "If you have questions or wish to give private testimonials email ubuntu-membership-boards@lists.ubuntu.com (your message may initially be held for moderation)" 21:22:05 ensure the list is seen as a prominent for of support? 21:22:12 in the docs 21:22:17 pleia2, that should be good enough :) 21:22:22 oh cool 21:22:23 but it's not on /Membership and doesn't exactly scream "we can help you out!" 21:22:31 ok 21:22:35 I'll take care of it 21:22:37 thanks dholbach 21:22:48 #action dholbach raise awareness of the list as a place for support 21:22:48 * meetingology dholbach raise awareness of the list as a place for support 21:23:00 so I would like to discuss the meetings feedback 21:23:19 there were two primary areas of concern here - the timliness of getting to applications and quorum 21:23:29 maybe lets look at timeliness first 21:23:59 is there a limit on how apps happen in each meeting? 21:24:08 not for EMEA 21:24:09 EMEA and Americas do fine with quorum, and the CC just added 3 additoinal members to Asia Pacific so hopefully that won't be an issue moving forward (I'm working with APAC on this as I can) 21:24:26 pleia2, awesome 21:24:31 I dont see a breakdown on which board has timeliness issues? 21:24:33 not for Americas either, we don't have a problem getting through our list 21:24:40 popey, it was general feedback 21:24:47 no specific board was highlighted 21:24:51 how do you feel about having meetings regardless of quorum or not and chasing up additional votes by email afterwards? 21:24:58 dholbach, +1 21:25:11 dholbach: yeah, I think we need to take that into consideration 21:25:12 its rarely been an issue for EMEA 21:25:17 I think the idea of folks showing up for approval and meeting doesn't go ahead because of quorum is not good 21:25:20 jono: now and again EMEA runs a bit late, which usually steps into CC meeting space, but so far CC has never complained about it and when it has run late it hasn't been by more than 15 minutes or so 21:25:20 but I'd be happy to do that 21:25:29 but the problem with it is it puts people on hold 21:25:30 the trouble with Asia Pacific is that it's such a huge area (almost half the world!) 21:25:45 so getting quorum at a specific time is tricky 21:25:48 popey, meetings without quorum put them on hold as well :-P 21:25:50 popey, it does, but canceling meetings because of lack of quorum puts an application in limbo 21:25:50 turning up to meetings people have an expectation set that they'll find out immediately 21:25:58 i disagree 21:25:59 at least if we move to mail the application can continue 21:26:17 lack of quorum and no meeting are similar state, the person didnt get to have their say 21:26:26 popey, I disagree: 21:26:39 but to have the meeting and then say "you'll have to wait for your answer" is different 21:26:40 if a person shows up and no quorum - there is no meeting and nothing happens 21:26:48 I personally would welcome a "let's talk about it now and we'll get back to you with a decision" as I had a chance to reply to questions as opposed to being told "come back in two weeks" 21:26:59 dholbach: +1 21:27:09 but maybe that's just me 21:27:11 ...and pleia2 21:27:17 if we change it where there is no quorum and the present members vote and the remaining votes are offered over email, the applicant can be informed that the app is still being processed 21:27:32 dholbach, +1 21:27:37 which was my point, it puts people on hod 21:27:37 people sometimes bring along their peers on ubuntu projects to cheer for them, it's very discouraging when you bring people along and no meeting happens, at least they could introduce themselves and get their cheers in 21:27:39 *hold 21:27:57 FYI we did that with the last DMB meeting and it was a right pain to chase people to vote 21:28:02 popey, but they are not on hold, it is just continuing as opposed to them showing up to a meeting for it to be a waste of time 21:28:05 at least via email the people who complete the quourm can see the log of people turning up and cheering I suppose 21:28:13 Laney, interesting 21:28:15 we're splitting hairs 21:28:18 well, given that pleia2 said some applicants don't have complete applications, it's hard to know in advance what questions need to be asked even if one can't be present, perhaps a requirement that an application must be complete to be processed w/out quorum (as a followup) 21:28:28 which is why we moved away from email stuff in the first place 21:28:54 ok so the other option is that we always strive maintain quoum 21:28:59 Laney: +1 (and thanks again for handling it ;)) 21:29:01 additional board members could solve that 21:29:17 we dont exactly have people falling out of the sky to be on boards 21:29:31 popey, do you have another idea in which we can secure a quorum? 21:29:40 asia pacific hasn't had a meeting since we added the new members, and they were the only board really having problems 21:29:47 yes, get people from other boards 21:29:48 I think we should see how things go with their new members and take it from there 21:29:53 I have suggested this previously, and it does work 21:29:54 I still think going ahead was the right decision though 21:29:55 popey, which boards? 21:30:01 other membership boards? 21:30:01 better then leaving people hanging after they've turned up 21:30:04 yes 21:30:14 makes sense 21:30:18 I have stood in for members of US and Asia boards on more than one occasion 21:30:27 because I happened to be online and saw in -meeting that there was no quoum 21:30:36 popey, that makes sense 21:30:42 and subsequently (months later) people from those boards rememebr that and ping me directly 21:30:55 this is why we post reminders to the membership boards list 21:30:56 the CC has pretty much said this was ok 21:30:59 its why we have only one list 21:31:37 so we can say "Hey, emea meeting tomorrow" and when someone says "can't make it, we wont be quorum" we can have an opportunity (albeit at short notice) to get someone to stand in 21:31:55 popey, do you feel all boards are aware that this is what they should do if there is no quorum? 21:32:06 I think they're aware that its possible 21:32:13 i dont think they believe it's policy 21:32:17 because it isnt really 21:32:26 its members of a board doing a favour for members of another board 21:32:37 and the CC has said it's ok 21:32:37 informally, and on best-endeavour basis 21:32:38 maybe we can formalize this as a policy 21:33:01 should it only apply to RMBs or any governor who is equipped to approve membership 21:33:10 so if there is DMB member for example they could step in 21:33:11 tricky 21:33:14 it really should not be something that's used regularly 21:33:22 pleia2, agreed 21:33:32 if a board regularly has trouble getting quorum we need to address that directly (like we just have with APAC) 21:33:40 pleia2, agree 21:33:58 exactly 21:34:08 so maybe we should formalize as a policy and communicate to all RMBs that this used if quorum cannot be made, but should be used only when absolutely required 21:34:11 I think we'll be ok once we get asia pacific back on track, they are the board that really has struggled the most with this 21:34:18 but (for example) I would have no problem asking someone like jussi or laney from irc or dmb to step in if they could. 21:34:42 it's not like we're asking a welder to do brain surgery, I'm pretty sure we're all on roughly the same page when it comes to what's expected of a member? 21:34:50 however! 21:34:54 agreed 21:34:57 I don't think it works the other way round 21:35:01 yes 21:35:03 I wouldn't want to stand in on the DMB 21:35:06 this is a one way thing 21:35:07 yeah, I can't judge irc membership 21:35:11 popey: +1 21:35:20 I can't techincally add people to ~ubuntumembers though 21:35:26 others can tho 21:35:29 ok, popey would you be happy to mail all the RMBs to ensure they are aware of this workflow if quorum is not met? 21:35:34 we're not asking the entire dmb to step in :D 21:35:35 just saying that launchpad doesn't think I have this authority 21:35:38 yeah, presumably the *whole* board wouldn't be MIA for a meeting :) 21:35:57 I hear Fedora have some Ambassadors, we could get them to stand in! 21:36:05 yes jono 21:36:08 thanks popey 21:36:14 action me up 21:36:27 #action popey mail RMBs about lack of quorum workflow 21:36:31 #action popey mail RMBs about lack of quorum workflow 21:36:31 * meetingology popey mail RMBs about lack of quorum workflow 21:36:39 As one of the new members of AsiaOceania I'd just like to throw a quick comment that I am finding it difficult to find any documentation on policy. I know we're here to decide on membership applications but the details of how we achieve that all seem to be word of mouth and just assumed. 21:36:42 like, if you want that to be possible then make dmb and irc and whatever a member of the team that makes you an admin of ubuntnumembers 21:36:59 then the delegation is clear 21:36:59 head_victim, good point 21:37:05 Sorry to interrupt, just wanted to give a newbies view 21:37:11 head_victim: please do 21:37:13 we don't have a "how to review membership" wiki page, right? 21:37:22 oh, you said your thing :) thanks 21:37:32 not that I know of 21:37:37 I asked the mailing list as well and got no response either. 21:37:51 I think such a page could be useful 21:38:06 would someone like to volunteer to put it together? 21:38:07 Very, especially if us 3 new members all turn up and we're the only ones there. 21:38:08 head_victim: apologies, I was meaning to reply to that, I have a whole email I send to new americas members 21:38:27 jono: I have one pretty much written, I'll formalize it 21:38:29 pleia2: tis ok, I just happened to see this meeting pop up after my night shift so hung around to join in 21:38:55 #action pleia2 to publish "welcome" document for new board members with policy for approvals 21:38:55 * meetingology pleia2 to publish "welcome" document for new board members with policy for approvals 21:39:12 pleia2, awesome! 21:39:17 great 21:39:20 win 21:39:21 Thanks everyone 21:39:29 I think this covers many of the key areas 21:39:45 maybe we should focus on these actions first 21:39:49 and then review in another meeting? 21:39:59 or at UDS 21:40:05 dholbach, good idea 21:40:09 sounds good 21:40:20 I'll add it to my TODO list to schedule such a session 21:40:25 thanks dholbach 21:40:41 awesome 21:40:44 we should make sure this document leaves room for interpretation 21:41:01 +1 21:41:18 alright 21:41:20 are we done? 21:41:25 highvoltage: still about? was your "Defining what upstream contributions are in terms of membership" agenda item sufficiently discussed this past month? (I didn't want to just remove it without asking) 21:41:58 I think it was, just need to be sure we don't have loose ends that we need to take care of or document 21:42:10 aside from what we've already discussed today, of course 21:42:58 pleia2: it was, I can't find the link to it though (been looking for it for dholbach) 21:43:13 highvoltage: a summary would be nice 21:43:28 is this documented somewhere which upstream contribution count for Ubuntu membership? 21:43:56 Laney: the outcome was basically that upstream contributions do count if it affect ubuntu significantly (maybe not exact workding, but that's basically it in concept) 21:44:43 Laney: I believe the plan is to take more tricky applications on a case-by-case basis until there is more convention to document 21:44:57 since we're giving examples of work in loco teams and such that counts, I think we should add upstream as a category of contributions that we can give examples of 21:45:01 that sounds reasonable to me ... if the relevance is clearly enough described in the application (I was not part of that last meeting) 21:45:26 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/713 gives some more background on sabdfl's view on it, which I think is reasonable 21:46:06 ok, I tihnk we can wrap up then :) 21:46:09 thanks highvoltage 21:46:17 thanks everyone! 21:46:40 #endmeeting Generated by MeetBot 0.1.5 (http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot)